Establish Moderation Report Guidlines

[coconutED]

I move that formal guidelines or a standard format be adopted for all moderation reports. At a minimum, language from the forum rules should be specifically cited or quoted so as to positively identify the authority under which the moderation action was taken.

Reports need to look something like this:

Moderation Report

Authority: Category Three, rule 1, "Slurs are allowed, as long as they aren't obviously intended to be harmful. That is to say, in the absence of absolute evidence of harmful intent, no action will be taken"

Incident: User1 made personal attack with obvious harmful intent on User2 in thread (link) post # (link), specifically (quote or screenshot of original post)

Action: User1 post modified to remove personal attack. User1 warned.

Moderation Report

Authority: Default Rule, "Adult material, as defined by the Google TOS, goes in the restricted forums, no exceptions;" Google AdSense Content Policy, Adult Content, "Not acceptable: Lewd or provocative images"

Incident: User1 posted provocative image in violation of Google TOS in thread (link) post # (link), specifically (description detailing what makes the image "provocative")

Action: User1 post modified to remove adult content. User1 warned.

Maybe not exactly, but you get the idea. I believe that doing this would bring moderator accountability up to the level it should be at, and make appeals easier to resolve if/when they arise. If this sounds like it's too much work for mods, then that's probably a good thing; if they can't justify an action using the rules, then they shouldn't do it.

 

[Shirotsume]

I don't have a particular feeling against this, but the most important part of the report by a mile is the actual contents of the report the mods receive that spurs them to action, and you don't have that included.

 

[coconutED]

That's fine. Put whatever information you think needs to be in there, just make sure that it's all there and specific as possible. The report thread as it exists now is completely useless.

Also, sarcastic/fake report posts shouldn't be allowed, but whatever.

 

[GenocideHeart]

Geh... I'm not good at legalese. Is this strictly necessary or is it preferable, but a more colloquial form of posting still allowed? I like to talk the way I eat, and that's basically 'not by having my fork and knife make a 720° and a leg split whole cartwheeling to the side'.

I suppose I could grab Shiro when I need to fill a report and force him to write all my crap get some advice for what to write...

 

[T.L]

Confused,
Isn't that what the report button at the bottom of each post is for.
Popup box for reporting

Report this post to a moderator

You should only report posts that are spam, advertising messages, or abuse.
(Just reword this section)


Your reason for reporting this post:

I was under the impression you just filled in the alleged rule violation and it went through to the mod team.

 

[Christopher Robin]

He meant the report the mods post after they take action.

 

[coconutED]

Geh... I'm not good at legalese. Is this strictly necessary or is it preferable, but a more colloquial form of posting still allowed? I like to talk the way I eat, and that's basically 'not by having my fork and knife make a 720° and a leg split whole cartwheeling to the side'.

What rule was broken?
How was the rule broken?
In what thread/post was the rule broken?
What mod powers did you use?

As long as those questions are answered (along with whatever else is deemed necessary) with specific information, then I personally don't care how it's written up.

 

[Elvarein]

That's fine. Put whatever information you think needs to be in there, just make sure that it's all there and specific as possible. The report thread as it exists now is completely useless.

Also, sarcastic/fake report posts shouldn't be allowed, but whatever.

Actually, I really agree with both the points raised.

 

[Cherry_lover]

Geh... I'm not good at legalese. Is this strictly necessary or is it preferable, but a more colloquial form of posting still allowed? I like to talk the way I eat, and that's basically 'not by having my fork and knife make a 720° and a leg split whole cartwheeling to the side'.

What rule was broken?
How was the rule broken?
In what thread/post was the rule broken?
What mod powers did you use?

As long as those questions are answered (along with whatever else is deemed necessary) with specific information, then I personally don't care how it's written up.

Yeah, I agree with this. The exact structure isn't important, but this information should be present. Oh and, also, the name of the member responsible for the breach....

 

[Watashiwa]

We do that, we've just not been reporting the member who made the moderation request except in cases of "move this thread".

If we start handing out warnings with any regularity you can be damn sure you'll know why.

 

[Cherry_lover]

We do that

I have seen some reports (although they don't have warnings attached) that don't mention the person responsible. Notably the ones about NSFW posts.

True, there's no warning, so it's not quite so important, but it would probably make sense to mention the culprit anyway, unless you have a good reason for not doing so.

we've just not been reporting the member who made the moderation request except in cases of "move this thread".

Well, of course.

If we start handing out warnings with any regularity you can be damn sure you'll know why.

Yeah, of course.

I'm just saying that that information should be present in any report you make, really.

 

[chronodekar]

Just noticed this thread.

What rule was broken?
How was the rule broken?
In what thread/post was the rule broken?
What mod powers did you use?

Most (if not all) of my 'moderator actions' I've done so far involve cleanups. Usually adding tags to thread titles or sticking threads. Which, I'm going to assume means that your first 2 questions don't apply to.

3rd question - yes, I leave links in my reports.
4th question - I've mentioned the action I've taken. This should be enough right?

I'm with GenocideHeart on the matter of 'exact wording of a report'. As long as its clear enough what we do; wouldn't it be enough?

For that matter, do you (anyone reading this) have any concerns about any specific reports made by staff ? If so, can you link to them and explain why? I want to get an idea of what information you think is missing. A direct example might make things more obvious.

-chronodekar

 

[coconutED]

My concerns lie mostly with the punitive actions; users warned or banned, posts / threads edited, deleted or moved (unless requested by the author), etc.

None of the moderator reports specifically cite the rule under which the punitive action was taken. They give reasons, but none of them cite specific language from the rules to justify their actions. Some of the reasons listed offer no obvious correlation to any of the rules. Example: posts #2 and #9 reference "inflammatory" behavior, however the word "inflammatory" does not appear anywhere in the unabridged rules. Regardless, I believe that in any enforcement action, the admin or mod should be able to point to the specific rule (i.e. "Category X, rule Y") that is being enforced, rather than assume everyone will find it obvious from what they wrote.

Also, none of the reports concerned state how the rule in question was broken. Example: posts #15, #19, and #30 reference NSFW material, but don't state how said material was NSFW. Was it a link to a lemon story (graphic description of sex)? Porn? Image with exposed naughty bits? Image implying a sex act even if nothing shown? ... etc. If you can't describe the violation without being overly graphic, then you can hide it behind a spoiler tag with the appropriate warnings. Explaining how the rules were broken will give us a better idea of how the rules are being interpreted.

tl/dr: be specific, give details

 

[pidl]

Also, none of the reports concerned state how the rule in question was broken. Example: posts #15, #19, and #30 reference NSFW material, but don't state how said material was NSFW. Was it a link to a lemon story (graphic description of sex)? Porn? Image with exposed naughty bits? Image implying a sex act even if nothing shown? ... etc. If you can't describe the violation without being overly graphic, then you can hide it behind a spoiler tag with the appropriate warnings. Explaining how the rules were broken will give us a better idea of how the rules are being interpreted.

tl/dr: be specific, give details

Does it really matter how it was NSFW, as long as it is? What you're asking is basically that they copy the NSFW material into the mod report, which defeats the purpose of deleting it.

 

[coconutED]

If you said something was NSFW, and the offender asked "What was wrong with it?," how would you answer?

If it's something obvious, like a lemon, or a pic with nudity, then stating "lemon," or "nudity" is sufficient. If no important parts are shown, then further explanation should be required.

 

[Cherry_lover]

None of the moderator reports specifically cite the rule under which the punitive action was taken. They give reasons, but none of them cite specific language from the rules to justify their actions. Some of the reasons listed offer no obvious correlation to any of the rules. Example: posts #2 and #9 reference "inflammatory" behavior, however the word "inflammatory" does not appear anywhere in the unabridged rules. Regardless, I believe that in any enforcement action, the admin or mod should be able to point to the specific rule (i.e. "Category X, rule Y") that is being enforced, rather than assume everyone will find it obvious from what they wrote.

The thing is, it's not always that simple. Sometimes, what someone does is obviously wrong, but the exact rule it's breaking isn't so obvious.

Also, none of the reports concerned state how the rule in question was broken. Example: posts #15, #19, and #30 reference NSFW material, but don't state how said material was NSFW. Was it a link to a lemon story (graphic description of sex)? Porn? Image with exposed naughty bits? Image implying a sex act even if nothing shown? ... etc. If you can't describe the violation without being overly graphic, then you can hide it behind a spoiler tag with the appropriate warnings. Explaining how the rules were broken will give us a better idea of how the rules are being interpreted.

tl/dr: be specific, give details

Well, it did state "a link".

Also, posting NSFW content outside the restricted section (even with spoiler tags) is presumably just as forbidden for mods as for everyone else. That rule is there for a reason, after all....

 

[chronodekar]

Also, posting NSFW content outside the restricted section (even with spoiler tags) is presumably just as forbidden for mods as for everyone else. That rule is there for a reason, after all....

Off-topic, but this reminds me. There were some configuration issues about the restricted section when we moved. Is it still 'restricted' ? As in, can a new member directly access it, or are there some barriers or warnings? Or even a password?

-chronodekar

 

[coconutED]

The thing is, it's not always that simple. Sometimes, what someone does is obviously wrong, but the exact rule it's breaking isn't so obvious.

Which is exactly why the mods should at least go through the mental exercise of applying the rules as they were written and agreed upon by the forum and "show their work" before handing out punishment. Just because something is "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean that it warrants punitive action. If you're going to warn and ban people for stuff that's not codified in the rules, then there's really no point in having any in the first place.

 

[Jakkun]

I think there have only been two actual bans, and a couple warnings (with %). Those I believe were pretty explicitly stated. There have been other warnings, but that is just someone being alerted that they are doing something wrong, and told to stop. We should pick a new word for that type of warning to stem confusion.

Chrono, there is nothing really restricted by the restricted section. Everything is just in there because the google trawler bots can't access that forum. For the average user, there is no difference.

 

[Cherry_lover]

Also, posting NSFW content outside the restricted section (even with spoiler tags) is presumably just as forbidden for mods as for everyone else. That rule is there for a reason, after all....

Off-topic, but this reminds me. There were some configuration issues about the restricted section when we moved. Is it still 'restricted' ? As in, can a new member directly access it, or are there some barriers or warnings? Or even a password?

-chronodekar

I don't know about new members, but I can certainly access it without a password. It does, however, not show the "last post" for the restricted forum when I view the forum listing.

If you think there's a problem with it, your best bet is to create (or get the admins to create) a sockpuppet and use that to test if the behaviour is correct.

Personally, I'm not even sure what the Restricted forum is meant to do. I just know I can access it.

The thing is, it's not always that simple. Sometimes, what someone does is obviously wrong, but the exact rule it's breaking isn't so obvious.

Which is exactly why the mods should at least go through the mental exercise of applying the rules as they were written and agreed upon by the forum and "show their work" before handing out punishment. Just because something is "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean that it warrants punitive action. If you're going to warn and ban people for stuff that's not codified in the rules, then there's really no point in having any in the first place.

Well, that is usually the case, yes, but if someone does something that is really bad (to the point of causing real harm to a member or to the forum itself) I don't think it should be.

 

[NuitTombee]

The password has been removed from the Restricted section for a while now, certainly before the votes even took place.